Women in Love

Today’s pull quote comes from Xpat Ranting’s blog. The discourse there is brief, but insightful:

I really, really, really hope the myth that girls are the hopeless romantics gets kicked to the curb ASAP. Everyone needs to realize that men are the “romantics pretending to be realists” and women; vice versa

I found this particularly thought provoking – Men are the romantics forced to be the realists, while women are the realists using romanticisms to effect their imperatives (hypergamy). This is a heaping mouthful of cruel reality to swallow, and dovetails nicely into the sixth Iron Rule of Tomassi:

Iron Rule of Tomassi #6Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.

In its simplicity this speaks volumes about about the condition of Men. It accurately expresses a pervasive nihilism that Men must either confront and accept, or be driven insane in denial for the rest of their lives when they fail to come to terms with the disillusionment.

Women are incapable of loving men in a way that a man idealizes is possible, in a way he thinks she should be capable of.

In the same respect that women cannot appreciate the sacrifices men are expected to make in order to facilitate their imperatives, women can’t actualize how a man would have himself loved by her. It is not the natural state of women, and the moment he attempts to explain his ideal love, that’s the point at which his idealization becomes her obligation. Our girlfriends, our wives, daughters and even our mothers are all incapable of this idealized love. As nice as it would be to relax, trust and be vulnerable, upfront, rational and open, the great abyss is still the lack of an ability for women to love Men as Men would like them to.

For the plugged-in beta, this aspect of ‘awakening’ is very difficult to confront. Even in the face of constant, often traumatic, controversions to what a man hopes will be his reward for living up to qualifying for a woman’s love and intimacy, he’ll still hold onto that Disneyesque ideal.

It’s very important to understand that this love archetype is an artifact from our earliest feminized conditioning. It’s much healthier to accept that it isn’t possible and live within that framework. If she’s there, she’s there, if not, oh well. She’s not incapable of love in the way she defines it, she’s incapable of love as you would have it. She doesn’t lack the capacity for connection and emotional investment, she lacks the capacity for the connection you think would ideally suit you.

The resulting love that defines a long-term couple’s relationship is the result of coming to an understanding of this impossibility and re-imagining what it should be for Men. Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy. By order of degrees, hypergamy will define who a woman loves and who she will not, depending upon her own opportunities and capacity to attract it.

Women love their pocketbooks, phone, tv, house, etc. Women expect men to buy them these things (or if the woman already has them, then to buy her Newer/Better/More expensive of these things). Men can opt-out of this, and also thus have better Game, by not buying women anything expensive. A man can love himself and maybe love his pets, and view women as just for Game.

The posts here are nicely written, and you get lots of little details right. In “to effect their imperatives”, for example, not one person in a hundred would use “effect” correctly, but you did. I have noticed, though, the frequent use of “it’s” as a possessive, as in “In it’s simplicity…” The apostrophe is seductive in possessives, but in this context you want “its” instead: “In its simplicity…” You might find the “his/hers/its” mnemonic helpful in remembering the distinction.

It seems your last posts are all about reasons why it´s so hard for most men to get a hold of the stress that comes with the new realistic “blue pill” world vision. Its very insightful, keep it coming.

Also in the way you describe the relation its more similar to the employer-employee relation and not a relation where you can depend on the other person if times go bad (which is neccesary if you want to feel safe in the relationship’)

Loved it Rollo. Just started reading your blog this week. Its been really helpful as I take my first tentative steps blogging as a way to organize my thoughts and dealing with the red pill.

Oh, by the way, I had no idea it would link and quote what I wrote on my blog earlier tonight to yours. I have no idea what the ‘etiquette’ is on that – I was startled to see that it did that. If you want me to take the link to yours down, just let me know. Or, alternatively, if there’s some setting I don’t know about to avoid doing that in the future, I’d love to know about it.

WordPress hasn’t exactly told me how that kind of thing works and I haven’t figured it out for myself yet.

A woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy

I’ve been hammering on that theme for a while, in relation to marriage. There was a time when the sexual strategy of relying on the norms of the community to help keep your partner mated to you was successful. But nowadays marriage is less effective, and men who want to maintain such bonds must take on more personal responsibility for the effort. Nowadays we must maintain attraction, through charisma, dominance, psychological ploys, and as many other attractiveness triggers as we can manipulate.

This spells out exactly why a man should seek a woman’s respect, and not her love. The more respect and power she gives him, the better he can love her.

As per the incapability to love at the same capacity, I’m curious as to an explanation of how this is a natural state. I consider it more to be a conditioned response, yet I could be wrong on that one.

I woman can love like a puppy. She can dote and be devoted. You can be her world.

But it’s a different love than what men have. Men are loyal to love, while women are loyal to immediate circumstances. Her feelings can be strong and powerful, and she will be honest when she says she wants to be with you forever. Translated to man speak it means “Right now I feel like I want to be with you forever”.

A woman’s love is a valuable thing. It has it’s own brand of truth and beauty to it. Just don’t mistake it for another thing.

After 35 years of marriage I still see the admiration and love in my mother’s eyes when she looks at my dad. I do not see how that applies to your argument. I guess this is one of those manosphere posts on which you try to reduce women into something they are not, in order not to feel guilty when you heartlessly use them and hurt them.

Interesting point. I think by that time they truly became ideal life partner’s. A sort of platonic friendship in conjunction with the former sexual chemistry must’ve risen from those everlasting years…. Question are you.. Christian by any chance? That must be a factor to, since husband and wife seek to be one flesh, beneath God.

Generally speaking, guava, I think your mom has a combination of four of these in dealing with dad.

From personal experience, I’ve seen husbands cherish their frumpy, fat, older wives in their later years MORE OFTEN than I’ve seen wives cherish their husband after he became weak and jobless and boyish (temporarily). Why haven’t other people picked up on this????
Roissy, in a thread long, long, long ago discussed how to retaliate if a girl asks if her azz looks fat. One of the quotes he mentioned was that “hmmmmm. strange” response would make her fall deeper in love and added a parenthesized (make her more dependent on you) adjacent to that. That bothered me a bit, which explains why it stuck to my mind so long.. is Love basically dependence and sumbission? Why are we engraved to aim to please?

In the Five Love Languages, there are supposed to be 5 ways you demonstrate love; through
ACTS OF SERVICE
QUALITY TIME
PRAISE
KINO
GIFTS

Interestingly enough, most of these backfire in regards to seduction.. well a surplus of them to say the least. Rollo, if a girl shows affection through all five and is sincerely loyal to her man through thick and thin; do u think that she’s transgressed the general “realists pretending to be romantics” assigned to women? Thoughts would be appreciated.

I’ve exhibited this phenomenom many-a times before. I’ve seen my father hurt my little brother and little sister, but my little brother would still be kind to him and my little sister as well. However, when my father demosntrated sporadic cases of weakness or beta; I could detect a grimace in my sister’s eyes. My brother seems to have a consistent combination of respect/friendship/love whereas my sister will have cases where she’ll adore him and then flashes of complete, remorseless apathy. The latter more often nowadays as we are running thin on luxuriess….

Similarly, the sheer speed at which a girl who’s fallen out of love can break up with a man, to this day, baffles me.

Rollo, what would you recommend to help women enhance their capacity to love?

When I realized the implications of what this post is saying a few years ago I was shattered. Borderline suicidal. Profound one-itis AND realizing that there is no such thing as true love in the old school romantic sense almost made me lose my will to live. Beta, sure, but I had many bad things going for me. I was steeped in the romantics from a young age, both poetry and philosophy, not to mention a strong spiritual background. Frankly, I was totally unprepared for my whole life view to be upended. The poster who said its like realizing God doesnt exist, comes pretty close to how I felt.

I now know the truth, and this has inured me to women’s words wrt love. My only hope is that I find a woman who is very religious, ethical, strong family background and moral values and even then I know these are only buffers to her hypergamy. Thing is, I want children, if I didn’t I would never marry a woman, much less monogamous ltr, knowing what I know now. Like clockwork, its actually amazing and depressing how predictable women really are once you get down to the biology behind it all.

A woman asked me what my “love language” was and I said something like, “I don’t need love, Chuck Norris only loves his horse.” So, instead of getting smushy, this kind of a ultra-confident statement increased her attraction.

In Guava’s parent’s case I have no doubt that her mother has a deep affinity for her husband. As I said, this isn’t an issue of whether a woman can love at all – I’m not debating the genuineness or sincerity of women’s capacity to love. What I’m positing here is that women’s conception of love isn’t what men would be led to believe it is. Men are the True Romantics not women.

Men cling to an idealized concept of love that no woman is capable of fulfilling because her concept is different. Hers is a more practical, pragmatic conditional love while his is more ephemeral if that makes any sense? I’m sure Guava’s mother is deeply in love with her husband, but based on the conditions of how well he’s able to typify her concept of loving.

Women confuse love with infatuation. When they are infatuated, they “love” you. When they are not, they “don’t love you anymore”. As it has been said, they love the feelings you produce in them.

When a man says “I love you”, he means “I would do anything for you. I will be loyal and I will sacrifice for you”. When a woman says “I love you”, she means “Right now, I am feeling romantic feelings for you because I have a gina tingle”. While men are talking about the future, women are talking about the present. In fact, women are creatures of the present, when it comes to relationships.

Besides that, for women, love always follow self-interest. If a woman perceives that loving you is against her interest, she will stop loving you. This will be little by little, step by step and it won’t be conscious, but, if you want women can love men unconditionally, you are for a rude awakening.

So what is the love that men expect, exactly? From the post, it seems a bit vague, but I guess it’s that almost unconditional love? The one where you stick together even if you age, lose a job, become less exciting? Fully unconditional love is not something to want, if you ask me, as it’s the type of love that keeps people with their abusive partners. I also looked at the Disneyesque ideal link. Is that what men want, then? Wanting to be needed and indispensable is not asking for too much (if you’re unneeded and dispensable, it’s not much of a love…), but eating up each others time and having a mutual addiction is not realistic in the long run. So is this the difference between women’s and men’s love? Men have more commitment, loyalty and unconditionality?

I can agree with this. I must be wired differently because I love just like men love. I want to be completely devoted and loyal to someone that I can really trust. I find that I also hold friendships to a loyalty standard and because women are so iffy, I usually end up with only male friends. This is why I personally like to take my time dating. I also don’t date just to be doing it. If I’m out with someone it’s because I enjoy their company and want to get to know them better. I definitely circle around a person for a while before I decide to open my heart up to love them. I find I love with my head first, then my heart always follows.

I do agree that most womens idea of “love” is in fact infatuation. They don’t think it through. Its like buying a car on a whim and then regretting it and returning it once you’ve had time to think about it.

I’m psychologically where you apparently were once. You sound very similar to me – your upbringing, studies, interests, stuff. How did you get through it? What happened with the oneities girl? I’m at a loss for words, and feel like I’m Stevie on East Bound & Down. Like that’s who I’ll become if I don’t get over this. I have read, studied, & comprehended from an early age, Kierkegaard to Schopenhauer, St. John of the Cross to Kukai, Nerval to Ezra Pound, Yeats to Burroughs, the Sepher Yetzirah to Bacon to Scholem to you name it etc…yet I can’t internalize this newfound acceptance of the nature of women in a healthy manner. It’s causing me a profound misery; no longer staring into the Abyss, I’ve become it.

A girl actually, literally said to me recently, “[She] loves [her] dog, because it’s the ONLY thing [she] can ‘love’.” And now I get it.That was perhaps the most honest thing a woman has ever told me. Why is this even depressing? Shouldn’t I be happy that I will have many women in my life, and no longer believe I’ll have one? It’s that the girl I have oneitis for, I now understand, doesn’t, nor ever, has, or will love me. Unrequited is what someone else said, and I guess that’s true. But, she will still tell me she loves me, so I’m left extremely confused, because she exhibits every behavior, I now see, that these blogs speak of.

This is just ridiculous. I’m physically ill from seeing this all play out.

Thank you everyone for all of your insight. The internet is a blessed curse.

@Emma the Emo
“So what is the love that men expect, exactly? From the post, it seems a bit vague, but I guess it’s that almost unconditional love? ”

I would be happy to have a love who doesn’t disappear when the first problem arises. And it would be nice to have a woman who doesn’t go after my material assets. Nowadays, this is mission impossible.

Of course, every woman I have known in my life denies she is interested in economic things. They deny it, deny it, deny it. But they all earn a lot less than I do.

In fact, my romantic prospects have followed my economic situation. When I was poor (a student), I was celibate because no woman would touch me with a six-feet pole. When I got a good job (lots of money), I had a lot of women interested in me. Then I got a job as a teacher and only the cleaning lady was interested in me. Then I got a very important job and I had lots of women offering themselves to me.

None of this even makes sense according to my experience in life. Maybe it coincides with how I would describe one or two women I’ve been in a relationship with, but not all of them, by far. People are too variable to make this kind of complex generalization and still maintain the guise of intellectual honesty.

I was once really a romantic male. My wife really had me sold on how much she loved me. She told me that she didn’t care about money…and on and on…
Then, I got downsized from the company I worked for through no fault of my own. She did a total 180. She was mean, cold, and sexually unavailable.
Then, a couple of years later, I landed back in a large corporation. She suddenly had an interest in me again.
Screw that…

Women are utterly incapable of loving a man in the way that a man expects to be loved.
Just out of curiosity, how does a man expect to be loved?

Apparently, the problem is that women love men for some reasons… for qualities… Men have to be something to be loved. (Correct me if I’m wrong).
I sometimes wonder… OK, correct me if I’m wrong, this is just a hypothesis. I do not think the problem is that women love conditionally (that is, they love men for possitive traits). I think the problem is that men love women for nothing.

In their teens, boys are not very attractive, and also a bit aggressive. Most boys are not wanted by the girls. Boys are supposed to grow into men. They must earn their value.

In their teens, girls are very attractive and boys and men want them. Womanhood is not required of them. Other higher values are not socially required of them. They are not forced to earn their value.

Manhood is to be earned. A boy has, socially, less worth than a man.

However, society puts great value in girls, much less than it gives to grown-up, loyal, responsible, rational, caring women. Boys do NOT get love or value for existing. Girls get loved, basically for nothing that is their own merit.

I was already scared of being considered useless after my 30s when I was 15, so I thought a bit about it and arrived to this conclusion:
“You don’t have to fear old age if you do things right. The only problem when you are 35 is that you are a man. You will not get free attention, you will not be listened to unless you have something interesting to say, you will have to work out your way in life. Might as well start right now, and not rely on looks for anything. First of all, I do not choose whether I’m pretty or not: whoever is looking chooses. And in any case, it’s not going to last. Only thing I need is to try to become better, smarter, a hard worker, earn my own money… So when my looks are away, I’m worth something”.

As far as I know, most young girls (specially the more attractive ones, and more so the ones who qualify as “hot”) do not know this, rarely arrive to such a conclusion, and get into “I am worth it” mindset. They do not think they have to become “women”. They do not think they have to do something to be of value because society tells them they are already valuable just for existing. This leads to a tremendous waste of their 20s, years in which you are supposed to learn, mature, work, and not hurt your body much.

So… Correct me if I’m wrong, but… I don’t know if the problem lies so much in women not loving men for reasons, as the fact that men are wired to love girls and young women just because. And logically, men may be astounded at the fact that women cannot lovem them back the same way.

It is nobody’s fault, that’s how it’s ingrained in our genes. A tribal Neolithic society of 100 individuals can afford to lose 90% of the men, and it will survive. Not so much if it loses 90% of the women. Because of that, girls are wanted just because. They have value for existing. While boys rarely do (at least in the sexual market: in theory, in our democratic societies, every life is of equal value).

But maybe the problem is that men want women to love them as they love (or want) women. And I am not sure that is possible. I need to respect a man to love him.

I soon realized that being sexually attractive to a male (at least in my late teens and 20s) meant nothing. Having a man’s respect is something of value, because it doesn’t come for free. You have to earn it, and that makes you a better person.

I am sorry our genes are wired that way, because that sense of power and entitlement some women have in their prime stops them from pursuing better interests, they don’t develop their personalities, skills, social sphere… Nothing. It’s really bad for them in the long run, because when their looks fade, they have nothing.

However, just because our genes are wired in an unfair way, doesn’t mean we as human beings have to be unfair. Civilization is a lot about putting a stop to those goddamn selfish genes for the best of all of us (or so I thought).

Maybe the trick is loving women for good qualities and traits they have worked on. To love women conditionally when they deserve it.

I find your comments interesting and somewhat factual, however I think you miss the picture. There are people out there who will love through the tough times. I do realize that you must always be on your toes in marriage continually dominating the game with ultra confidence and swagger. Real romantic love does exist and generalization of entire genders is not accurate to say the least. I just believe that we all must realize that love is not about you but rather putting the other above yourself while at the same time making them feel the need and desire to seek your affection.

I think that marriage and divorce laws have corrupted the institution, but to assume that all or even most marriages engage in hypergamy is “romantic” a.k.a. delusional. In fact, the “dowry” is alive and well except that in modern days, the professional woman provides her own rather than necessarily being so endowed by parentage. However, the myth is so powerful, many couples act out the charade of the American Dream to impress the Joneses. The fact is, if men didn’t believe that women have an inherently lesser sex drive (otherwise he isn’t “masculine”) they wouldn’t be party to this charade. Many men do not believe this and engage in hyperandry. As the badly divorced bride of a man who married up, I think it is high time to expose the charade. Meanwhile, feminism has seen to it that the majority of resources are in the hands of or otherwise controlled by women. Being that that is the case, any woman seeking hypergamy is in for a rude shock.

I’ve witnessed plenty of men leave their wives when, all other factors remaining the same, she fell ill or lost her job or lacked in some other way. Men love just as conditionally as do women. I’m really surprised that this particular blog post was written by the same author as was SMV as the intelligent analysis in that post factors in variables sought by each gender. Even if you don’t want to identify what it is that men ought to be bringing to the relationship besides “themselves”, it seems quite unfair and unreasonable to not even recognize that to want unconditional love is conditional in itself.

Besides, I just think this notion that men love unconditionally, romantically, and idealistically only serves to bolster the sexist Game theorist perspective of male privilege as the natural order of things.

It is possible for a man and woman to bond. An ecstatic state. But almost all Western women are incapable of the surrender required to make it happen. Despite the bliss. Despite the sharing of tasks. Despite the continual being in love feeling.

Western women want control. And they will give up happiness to get it. Fools.

Ok………this seems either like bullshit/misunderstanding of reality OR maybe there’s several realities and Rollo just picked up on one only? Or maybe I just have so many emotional issues that my reality is different from other females. Either way, the article just states a theory without proof?

How….in the hell….are men the ones to want unconditional love????

Women are the ones who have to stay beautiful and a fucking mystery (i.e. pretend to be something they’re not and never relax/open up) or get tossed out like garbage.

Women require the man to be dominant/protect/provide/give affection etc. because it ASSURES them that the guy still loves her.

Men, on the other hand, only want a girl on their terms and only love when it is convenient in the moment. I.e. if he wants space–she is a burden if she approaches. if he wants sex or companionship–he pretends or convinces himself he loves her. But they are rarely loyal and they move on very easily after relationships.

Men only give affection/love on the condition of expected conquest/sex. i.e. conditional.

So I really don’t get why this theory is so accepted?

I’m a girl–all I ever wanted my whole life was unconditional love from a guy–once I bond it’s for life until he dumps me. so like…. I don’t get it. It seems the post has it backwards. If anything, men are the ones that expect everything to be conditional since they know that everything must be earned? (i.e. like in Rollo’s new post with the movie examples) whereas women are more comfortable with the idea of unconditional love because it’s what THEY want and expect to give?

Woman are willing to help their men through a troubled time and accept their flaws–yet as soon as the man gets fixed he just tosses her even though she was there for him. So bullshit about vows being written to insure men–seems like women are the ones that need the marriage vows.

Because so far all I’m learning about real life is that there is no safe haven in the world because men are basically evil >.< I thought they are good about a month ago lol but this month I cannot view them positively. If anything–EVERYONE, both men and women, are opportunistic. But it's BS that men hope for something unconditional if they're not even willing to give it.

And no, I'm not a feminist or troll. But I just went through a breakup. AGAIN. and I'm sick of it. I was sweet caring supportive accepting pretty fun sexual etc. AND STILL I'm apparently not good enough for the bullshit lie of "love"–because as soon as the girl is the one that has a problem–the guy bails.

I wanted to stay naive and open to love etc. but reality is getting ridiculous. Men are the ones that prevent fairy tales from being a reality–not women. It's men that cannot get attached and only love opportunistically. Even if you are a princess–you still don't deserve a prince, apparently.

PinkFluffy, you sound like you have either been chasing bad boys or suffer from abandonment issues. No, you cannot date players and have your fairy tale haha. What you are describing is nowhere to be found when dating a decent guy.

Hulk Hogan, “decent guys” avoid princesses like the plague. Princesses are ruled by fear of age and death and furthermore, harbor the compulsion to compete with men. It gets tiresome.

Princes, on the other hand, are ruled by fear of age and death and harbor the compulsion to compete with women. Princes prefer to replace the old model with a shiny new one every year or so as compensation for their tiny penises. Princesses castrate.

Nah, I don’t chase bad boys–i do have abandonment issues though. This last guy WAS decent and a good person etc just immature and–as it turns –not AS good as i thought lol decent but kind of an asshole that presented himself as a kind hearted person. Then again–I think he only thinks he is so wonderful is because he is a mama’s boy–and at the same time he is paradoxically insecure in his masculinity (i say paradoxically cuz he sometimes acts like he is the shit).

Don’t get me wrong–I made lots of mistakes in the relationship and understand what I should learn from all this in retrospect–but at the same time I offered a lot of positive things and in the end he didn’t appreciate it.

We got into things way too fast–and looking back I am finally able to feel anger at him instead of regret and guilt. He really misled me–not only with his words but with his actions. Instead of telling me if something bothers him–he suppressed it and continued to act like he loves me or something (and it’s not because I was giving him sex and he didn’t wanna lose that or something–I wasn’t even engaging and oral and he was willing to take a break on any sexual activity if I wanted it). Plus he is a coward who cannot think for himself–who FB dumped me after a period of perfectness because his friend talked him into it–and only changed his mind when his mommy told him to get back together…….

So when he later claimed that I didn’t let him be a man it’s like….um…… maybe you should learn to use your mouth and SPEAK UP when you are displeased with something???? And I only started being more dominant because he was lazy with planning and said himself that he liked that I did half of the initiating!!!! like are you kidding me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS GUY HAS ISSUES!

Alas >=[ now I am happy that I learned so many gems of lessons from this failed relationship (like giving more space, being less critical, and never attempting to take things fast ever again) but am pissed off lol temporarily.

It’s hard to trust guys now, though. Because he was the first one I truly trusted…..=/ In fact that’s why it progressed so quickly. sigh.

What’s worrying me most is that I won’t be as physically and sexually attracted to anyone else again and will have to settle–I’d rather die than go through a life of mediocrity.

But it’s not that I was chasing some hot alpha–he is super super hot to me so I was always intimidated by him but it turns out the whole time HE WANTED TO BE WITH ME so it’s not a case of “Dating someone out of my league”. And he wanted something long-term, etc. and was so not asshole-y or douchey or anything when we were together. And other people say I’m better looking than him lol but I disagree simply because to me he represented an archetype and I feel ugly myself. And he is super hot to me by my fancy standards. He was tall, blonde, and had an adorable yet masculine face of a boyish farmer =/

sigh. =”’( so scared of the bleak future.

@Caprizchka

That’s a very interesting analogy….I actually fit your description of a princess……but….the thing is….knowing that as a female my value is predominantly based on age and beauty and that men are evil creatures that just want a pretty girl who doesn’t bother them–it is logical for me to fear aging =/

In addition to the evidence of the male tendency to impose will on others I posted at an earlier time, I’d like to add a theory as to why the “women=opportunistic” equation of participants in these comments is false. Since sex role stereotypes and gender-based socialization are phenomena consequent to eons of gendered division of labor in which women give birth to and care for children who proceed to develop and individuate in a way that experiences the caregiver as feminine, boys grow up to perceive the opposite sex in and I-Other rather than in an I-Thou manner. That is, boys and men tend to be more individualistic, more opportunistic, and more solipsistic. They are extremely skilled at denial-projection and manipulation of women. Every single experienced, wise woman knows the fragility of the male ego that has its tantrums and wants its way. When a woman dares bruise that ego when she might confront his failing (maybe his selfishness, his lack of sensitivity, his brutishness or whatever), it is the woman who is branded selfish. When this slight gets to be too much, whether it be the very first moment or after a while, the manchild joins the other manchildren who bitch, moan, complain among themselves so loud that the harpies and sirens are jealous.

@Ana, and thank you for your parroting of all the Women’s Studies social convention canards you learned at Sarah Lawrence. Some fragile ego will be along shortly to appeal to reason with you which you will patently ignore due to your ego investment in feminine self-righteousness.

Still not quite sure what I-other vs I-Thou means exactly but I think I understand your theory.

The thing is, I don’t think it’s just males that have fragile egos–women do, too. And I’m wary of stereotyping all men into one category. I’m sure insecure men require less criticism to feel comfortable–otherwise I’m too sure if the phenomena of men being unable to take criticism is an ego one:

I used to be in a relationship with a douche; after a month or so he started criticizing me ALL. THE. TIME. Telling me I’m not that pretty, I need to dress better; I’m likely to become trashy because I’m caucasian (he was asian) etc. So I dumped him, naturally. But point is, I wasn’t willing to take that bullshit. So I think men are also not willing to tolerate jabs at who they are.

Problem that I’ve encountered with this last guy is that even if I’m just criticizing the situation (NOT HIM) he still reads it as me being unhappy with him or me being a negative person…..even tho I just wanna bitch a little or just noting something so that we know to avoid it in the future…..SIGH. To be honest, I CAN see his perspective so I don’t wanna say it’s because of a fragile male ego–we ALL have fragile egos, especially if we have been raised insecurely.

I just need to maybe think more positively or remember to not criticize guys? But like……it’s frustrating because it’s like……it was ok for HIM to whine and bitch about stuff yet it was’t ok for me to do it…WTF.

So Ana….I think I agree with you on the solipsism. Men keep claiming women are the solipsistic ones but…..men are the ones that think it is ok for them to display negative traits in some way but girls must be perfect. As if girls don;t have their own worlds and lives that exited before meeting the guy……-.- Also my recent ex used to say that he is selfish….yet one of the reasons he doesn’t wanna be with me is allegedly my “Selfishness” (which isn’t even accurate–being oblivious to another person’s wishes in a state of irrational panic is not the same as just not caring about someone and not wanting to compromise if they were to JUST SPEAK UP which he never did)…..

Huh, you even mentioned selfishness. Your theory might actually have some validity. I’m just hesitant to agree with something that hints at a patriarchy.

Cuz to be frank…..I’m pissed off that feminism stripped my feminine privileges (aka option to stay home and not work, to be taken care of, to be treated as a princess more easily, etc.)–and instead is forcing me to compete in a workforce that I simply don’t have enough ambition for. fml =)

PinkFluffyUnicorn: knowing that as a female my value is predominantly based on age and beauty and that men are evil creatures that just want a pretty girl who doesn’t bother them–it is logical for me to fear aging =/

Sigh. You’re wrong. Your value is what you have inside and decent guys know this. Stop trying to be a trophy and you’ll stop attracting trophy collectors. I know, harder than it sounds.

My experience is that women will not bond to a man for fear of losing out on a better opportunity. There may be some who will. But I never ran into any of them. None of the women I ran into were willing to surrender – the secret of maintaining a human pair bond. Well, some would surrender long enough to get me in bed for some HOT sex. And after varying times they would break up.

And you want to be taken care of but dislike “patriarchy”? Too funny. That was the advantage of “patriarchy” for women. The advantage for men was the female in question would bond. That was part of the convention. It was expected.

So again–dunno what everyone raving about! No issues bonding here. Just have issues preventing me from keeping guys even when I accept THEIR issues.

@ Caprizchka

I dunno, I don’t wanna settle for someone that doesn’t find me beautiful –plus it’s scary to think that their attraction is based on something so fickle as personality–my mood swings can alter their perception fo me but at least my beauty is always the same level.

M Simon, Thank you. I do believe that I needed to completely eschew television and women’s magazines before I felt secure enough to bond. In case that isn’t clear–I stopped allowing media and other women to validate me. The only validation I need is in my man’s eyes.

PinkFluffyUnicorn, Very profound. Bonding with a man tends to ease those mood swings. A little testosterone in the air tends to calm everything down. Calmness, tranquility, and dedication is far more beautiful than obsessive grooming. Good for the skin and metabolism too!

Attachment is not the same as bonding. Attachment is done out of fear. Bonding banishes fear.

Caprizchka can explain it to you from a woman’s point of view. Short version – surrender. To make it work BOTH parties have to surrender – but the man is dominant and the woman is submissive (generally).

None of the Men’s Rights (MRA) sites or Pick Up Artist (PUA) sites explain bonding. Neither do any of the women’s sites – as Caprizchka has noted.

The PUA/MRA sites teach a man how to fake it long enough to get a woman in bed. I haven’t seen any that go deeper.

Caprizchka nails it: The only validation I need is in my man’s eyes.

Feminism has done some good things – but its denigration of the male/female bond is a great evil.

Further: I’m 69 and my mate is part of my age cohort. Her body is NOT the same as it was when we were dating (well neither is mine) – 40 years ago. But she is still the most beautiful woman I know – when we are bonded. And yes – I’m teaching her how to create and maintain it. Her feminism never did. Quite the opposite in fact.

The bond used to be well known – see Shakespeare’s “The Taming of the Shrew” for an example (I like the Taylor/Burton rendition). “Kiss Me Kate” is not bad either. The song “Brush Up Your Shakespeare” is a near perfect rendition of the PUA’s tools and attitudes.

I would say the main difference is that there is no insecurity of “will he/she leave me for another?”. Another difference is “devotion”. Add in “loyalty”. But it is really hard to put into words. If you have experienced it no words are necessary. If you have not, no words are possible.

We used to have systems and understandings that sorted these things out. All that is gone. What we have left is a shipwreck. There are treasures in the wreckage. But they are not easy to find.

It is my faith that we will eventually create systems suited to the new age. But the shipwreck will need to be more finely ground on the rocks.

I’m not so sure of the date. I do believe the end will come because the current system is a creator of maximum unhappiness. This is especially true for children.

And if you watch the movie I linked (Shrew) you will see that all we have done in this age is to let women rule – a tendency well noted a LONG time ago by the Bard. But it doesn’t work well.

The old rules will return:

He: “I will serve and protect you (and the children) with my life”
She: “I will willingly devote myself to you and your happiness.”

Very big commitments on both sides.

“What can I give” is the operative not “what can I get.”

See the last scene in the movie. It is all explained there. The whole thing is quite spiritual in nature. Something we give very short shrift to these days. Religion of course is justly denigrated. But we have replaced it with nothing. I was fortunate to live in the 60s. Individual spiritual quests were very popular. The Force still guides me. But first I had to spend 8 or 10 years intensively eradicating my internal noise so I could hear clearly the “small voice.” Gurdjieff/Ouspensky calls it “eliminating the rules”. We live by rote because we can not “feel” our position or hear the voice directing us. And when our internal rules don’t match reality? Wreckage.

And lest you think I’m some major wackner – I write for a major electronics magazine and when I was working (before “retirement”) I did aerospace work for a number of years among other things. I’m well grounded in rationality. But rationality – valuable as it is – is not everything.

lol I wasn’t going to question your rationality (but omg cool that you worked in aerospace field)

It’s funny that you mention quietness and the internal voice–because just over a week ago I decided that the path to eradicating my insecurities is to meditate until I’ve come to accept or find my inner essence–to become ok being alone and knowing that it is the nature of existence to be alone

Because as long as I keep running from fear of isolation and darkness etc I will always NEED a union with someone just to cope with life

Like at this point it is just impossible to rewrite the “horrors I’ve seen” growing up, loosely speaking. I’m so aware of the despair of the human existence that I cannot pretend it doesn’t exist or magically fill up the void of a missing father figure.

The only thing I can do is confront the worst case scenario — once I’m ok with that, I won’t be scared of LOSING what I gain and gain freedom (this is all theoretical but something I’ve been mulling over for a few years and seems like a hopeful proposition)

I’m scared of soooooooooooo much in my life and I am soooooooo sick of living in fear; it’s becoming intolerable.

Perhaps one problem with today’s youth is that because religion has been eradicated and all of these technological distractions were made available–instead of confronting the void and finding freedom, people are using modern toys instead of religion to distract themselves from it

Ok wow, just saw the clip and read a play synopsis. I am very confused and lost as to what the takeaway that you were driving at is. …That it is better to be with a man that deprives you instead of one that loves you and tries to win you over???? Don’t get which one is the “good” bond you speak of o.O

Seems like Bianca is the “attached”, rather than bonded one (since she just didn’t wanna be old and alone). So ….. taming a shrew is bad? And the good bond is the one with Lucentio and Katarina???

There is one trouble with the human condition. You can be objective and miserable or take a “best of all possible worlds” attitude and be happy.

BTW if you see the whole play you will find that both Kate and Petrucio come to love each other. Stockholm Syndrome kicks in. That is why arranged marriages (when there was no exit) used to work tolerably well.

But you do get it. The key is eradicating fear. I too had a very difficult childhood. If you are willing to face the pain (there is a LOT) you can overcome it. In Zen it is said that 2/3rds of the men who undertake the journey reach the end but only 1/3rd of the women. Evidently women are better at dealing with physical pain but find existential pain more difficult. Men tend to exactly the opposite. Just what you would expect from an expendable. And men are expendable. But the market for heroes (except as sperm donors) is greatly diminished. That is our great failing.

We have another failing. When women are not financially dependent on men there is much less need to bond. That “need” causes the lopping off of attitudes not conducive to bonding.

We will need a system that can cope with current realities. I have no idea what it will look like. My experience is that without restrictions on women (I’m against that) monogamy does not work well. What does? Having two girl friends at once. The competition between them “lops off” the undesirable attitudes. i.e. “what if SHE is nicer to him?”. That of course would mean 1/2 the men would have to do without a companion. How do you then keep the peace? Prostitution. Or some form of polyandry.

I dunno. Maybe we are not designed for other than occasional happiness generally. But I am at home in my skin. The best of all possible worlds.

My significant other and I have an “Open” relationship and that works for us. Yes, I had better keep on my toes because, frankly, I worship him and put him on a pedestal. The religion thing has therefore been satisfied in my heart. He is indulgent enough to allow my worshipping him (he’s actually quite the sardonic, self-effacing type) probably because I’m happy, cooking, singing, and sewing all the time and drop to my knees at the slightest provocation! Of course, most women my age think I’m terribly abused and need my consciousness-raised while meanwhile complaining that there aren’t any “real men” around anymore. Of course, they also ply me for my recipes and beauty secrets. They’d never believe my beauty secret–it’s precious, but, worth every effort to obtain. It comes from a proud and happy man.

Decades ago one of my mate’s “friends” once advised her to stop being a “doormat”. For amusement and to counter prior programming these days I ask her “Who are you?” She replies, “Your doormat.” Every time she utters that she gets this dreamy look on her face and connects totally with me. Delicious for us both.

M Simon, Be careful. The feminist state apparatus could use that information against you two by declaring that obviously intervention is required to halt your “abusive” dynamic. I’d tell you what my significant other calls me, but, I try not to aggravate and engage that apparatus. Engaging in the risk of trust between individuals threatens the power of the state.

I know I’m late to this comment thread but everyone on here who thinks Tomassi is arguing that women are incapable of unconditional love or are incapable of being romantic have missed the point. As I understood it, Tomassi was actually arguing that a man’s love entails several material sacrifices for her that the woman who loves him would never commit to.

A man’s genuine “I love you” = “I am willing to die to save your life, work my fingers to the bone and take out a life insurance policy to ensure your financial security, journey to the ends of the earth to slay any beast who kidnapped you, etc.” A woman’s genuine “I love you” never implies any of those obligations in popular culture; it only means warm, fuzzy feelings that will never manifest themselves as selflessly and dramatically as in a man.

That’s what he means when he says that men are conditioned to love women more deeply, or more profoundly, than women will understand. A man’s love in pop culture entails the endurance of misery and death for her welfare; a woman’s never does. I’d bet good money that an anonymous survey of heterosexual men and women that asks them what they would endure to save their mate’s life would support this claim.

I’d also bet that the women saved in the Aurora shooting would never have sacrificed their own lives to save their boyfriends even if they were given the chance.

(Obviously this doesn’t mean that all men who declare love mean it, or that all men who love their mates would go through hell for them. Only that more men than woman would.)

Anyway I’ve been binge-reading this site since the weekend and this was by far the most depressing article I’ve read. Now I have to live with the fact that no matter what girl I’m with, for how long, she would never give up her life for me like I would (have) for her. Romance is a fraud. I feel like I’ve been punched in the gut and left on the floor to cry.

Ana, what makes you think that? I have a tough time believing that just as many straight women as men in any culture would endanger their own lives for the well-being of their partners. If you could give some counterexamples that’d be great.

Problem is, as I see it, you guys have historically loved to use money, widely exaggerating claims of support (disproportionately skewed in your favor, to be point of being bullshit) and crying foul when marital assets have to be split equally (you tend to forget that her assets are halved too!), to yield power over women instead of being equal, fair, loving partners (like you all are trying to pretend to be here in this thread for example!). Feminism may have sparked this, but feminism is not the sine qua non of the battle of sexes.

Ana, I asked you to name a culture in which women who love men are expected to risk their lives, health, and financial welfare to save and protect them. The article you linked doesn’t meet my challenge. Just because there are women in our culture who provide for the men they love doesn’t mean that our culture expects this from them, considering that their jobless husbands are derided as layabouts, good-for-nothings, and not “real” men for not working.

Also, your article only deals with women who financially support men, not those who risk their lives and health for them, as men scramble to do for women. And even if you could find examples of American women suffering and dying to protect their husbands, it doesn’t change the fact that our culture regards this as an anomaly and promotes the opposite.

Finally, I’m not an MRA, but even if I were, it would have nothing to do with this discussion.

“Also, your article only deals with women who financially support men””

No, it doesnt.

1400 women interviewed. 40% are single (no men involved), 53% are housebreeders (the 40% singles are included here, obviously), then the remaining 13%, or as the article puts it, a third of the married ones, earn more money than their husbands.

There’s no relationship stated between these 13% of women and the kind of support they bring to their husbands. As you know, “earning more” is not a measure of it, doesnt measure love nor compromise, as Anna notes, too, any difference in power can be used to:

“to yield power over [the other party] instead of being equal, fair, loving partner”

So we dont know anything about these couples, and the article, named “women overtaking the workforce” certainly doesnt hint that the women are doing any of it because they are expected to love men and risk their lives for them at their own expense.

So Anna is a troll, or she didnt understand your question nor the article. Or both.